UC-NRLF 


In  3L 

&    S6 


$B    MS    3M^ 


CO 

vO 
CO 

:o 


m  MEMDU.IAJA 
George  Davidson 


The  Agreemeni/^^ 

Between  Science  and  Religion 

By    O  RX.  A  N  D  O     J  .  [.§  M  I  T  H 

Author  of  "ETERNALISM,"    "BALANCE,"    Etc. 


**  Nature  is  more  simple  than  our  conception 
thereof  J  we  begin  with  very  complicated  theories, 
and  end  with  the  most  simple." — Du  Prel. 

**The  plainest  truths  are  those  precisely  upon 
which  man  hits  last  of  all. " — Ludivig  Feuerbach. 

**It  nettles  men  to  find  that  truth  should  be 
so  simple." — Goethe. 


New   York:     C 


F  A  R  R  E  L  L  ,     Publisher 


Copyright,  1906,  by  Orlando  J.  Smith 


Qjic^i 


■CV^CM   f^/     ■(..(S-C'^^AmAJL^ 


;4=^i^5^'7^ 


One  copy  of  this  pamphlet  will  be  mailed  postpaid  fbr  Ten  Cents,  or  for 
Sixpence  in  English  money.  C.  P.  FARRELL,  Publisher^  117  East 
Twenty-first  Street,  New  York  City 


THE  AGREEMENT 

Between   Science  and   Religion 


WE  ARE  DEEPLY  interested  in  the  govern- 
ments, local,  state  and  national,  under 
which  we  live,  in  their  laws  and  regula- 
tions, in  the  protection  and  other  advantages  which  they 
give  to  us,  and  in  the  duties  which  they  exact  from  us. 
To  a  larger  degree  we  are  interested  in  the  government 
of  the  universe  to  which  we  are  subject  without  conscious 
choice  of  our  own.  If  we  do  not  like  the  community  in 
which  we  live,  we  may  remove  to  another,  and  we  may 
get  definite  information  concerning  that  other  before 
making  the  removal.  We  may  go  east,  west,  north  or 
south;  to  Canada,  to  Europe  or  to  the  antipodes.  But 
the  government  of  the  universe  does  not  grant  to  us  the 
privilege  of  removal  or  expatriation,  for  there  is  no  other 
imiverse  to  go  to.  Even  if  we  suffer  annihilation  in 
death,  we  go  nowhere,  not  elsewhere.  Our  fathers,  as 
far  back  as  history  or  fancy  can  carry  us,  were  subjects 
of  this  universe,  and  governed  by  precisely  the  same 
natural  laws  that  govern  us,  as  our  descendants  will  be, 
and  as  the  life  in  the  remotest  planets  must  be,  forever. 
We  may  alter  or  improve  our  man-made  laws  and  sys- 
tems of  government.  We  may  exercise  the  right  of  pro- 
test or  of  revolution.    Thrones  have  yielded,  time-hon- 


jv^28?969 


ored  systems  have  fallen,  in  response  to  human  demands. 
But  we  cannot  change  or  amend  the  government  of  the 
universe.  Often  we  raise  our  puny  arms  in  protest 
against  pain,  bereavement  or  misfortune,  but  we  make 
no  impression  upon  the  cosmic  order.  We  have  pro- 
duced no  army  strong  enough,  no  conqueror  great  enou^ 
to  change  in  the  slightest  degree  a  law  of  Nature. 

We  hunger  to  comprehend  the  government  of  the  uni- 
verse, to  know  whether  its  ways  are  really  just  or  unjust, 
what  our  relations  are  to  it,  and  what  ground  we  have  for 
hope  or  fear  from  this  stern,  mysterious  and  unchanging 
power  which  enfolds  us. 

Ever^eligious  cult,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest, 
has  had  one  central  motive — the  explanation  of  the 
government  of  the  universe.  Science,  in  its  higher  reach- 
es, seeks  to  solve  precisely  the  same  problem.  Religion 
would  explain  the  relations  of  the  individual  soul  to  the 
government  of  the  universe.  Science  would  explain  the 
relations  of  all  truth  to  the  supreme  adjustment.  Itshall 
be  my  task  to  inquire  concerning  the  results  of  these  two 
'investigations — one  religious  and  the  other  scientific^^of 
the  government  of  the  universe,  and  to  ascertain  whether 
—there  exists  any  agreement  between  them. 


[a] 


The   Foundation  of  Science 

WHAT  progress  has  been  made  by  science  in 
^tEe'explanation  6i   (He  gqyefnnient  of    thc^' 
univi^e?  '        ' 

The  science  of  logic  has  a  fundamental  postulate — 

the  uniformity  of  Nature^.inrhe  uniformity  of  the  course 
of  Nature,"  says  John  Stuart.  Mill.  "wiU.  appear  as  the 
ultimate  major  premise  of  all  inductions."  (System  of 
Logic,  202.)  He  means  by  this  that  all  reasoning  is  based 
upon  the  postulate  that  the  processes  of  Nature  are 
changeless — that  they  will  be  as  they  have  been,  that  two 
and  two  will  make  four,  that  gravitation  will  suffer  no 
impairpient,  that  the  same  cause  will  produce  the  same 
effect — and  that  the  processes  of  Nature  are  har- 
monious, no  process  being  in  conflict  with  any  other. 

That  the  processes  of  Nature  are  changeless  is  a  com- 
plete statement,  and  it  has  the  dignity  and  majesty  which 
we  would  associate  with  the  supreme  adjustment.  That 
the  processes  of  Nature  are  in  harmony,  not  in  conflict, 
is  also  an  inspiring  statement,  though  it  leaves  much  to 
be  explained.  We  would  know  the  grounds  of  this  agree- 
ment, the  key  to  this  supreme  harmony. 

Uniformity  means  of  one  form.  What  is  Nature's 
one  form,  or  process,  or  law,  or  principle,  upon  which 
her  harmonies  rest  ?    What  is  this  underlying  fact  ? 

[3] 


The  logicians  define  this  underlying  fact  in  the  term 
"invariable  sequence.'*  Of  the  meaning  of  "invariable 
sequence"  Mr.  Mill  says:  "Invariability  of  succession 
b  found  by  observation  to  obtain  between  every  fact  in 
Nature  and  some  other  fact  which  has  preceded  it.  .  .  . 
The  invariable  antecedent  is  termed  the  cause;  the  in- 
variable consequent,  the  effect."    (System  of  Logic,  213.) 

The  key  to  the  uniformity  of  Nature  b  found  by  the 
logicians  in  invariable  sequence,  and  invariable  sequence 
means  that  the  processes  of  Nature  are  generative;  that 
the  cause  begets  the  effect;  that  the  effect  is  true  to  its 
cause — that  the  apple  is  true  to  its  flower,  the  flower 
to  its  tree,  the  tree  to  its  seed.  Invariable  sequence 
is  not  a  thing  unknown  to  us.  It  is  the  familiar 
principle  thai  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents. 

I  purpose  to  trace  briefly  the  working  of  this  prin- 
ciple of  invariable  consequences  in  different  fields  of 
experience,  beginning  with  the  simplest  human  affaurs. 

In  Common  Experience 

One  has  consequences  in  view  when  he  strikes  a  match, 
sharpens  a  pencil,  sets  a  pot  to  boil,  mends  a  fence. 
Shall  I  change  my  coat?  take  another  cup  of  coffee? 
walk  or  ride  ?  Each  question  will  be  decided  in  accord- 
ance with  my  estimate  of  the  results.  We  plant  a  seed, 
a  rosebush,  an  orchard,  with  the  expectation  that  they 
will  pay  us  back.  We  study  a  lesson,  patch  the  roof  and 
build  roads  with  the  same  expectation. 

[4] 


Regret  is  usually  a  reminder  of  a  neglect  or  misjudg- 
ment  of  consequences,  while  repentance  and  reformation 
indicate  a  waking  up  concerning  consequences.  Our 
interest,  curiosity,  anxieties,  fears,  hopes  and  ambitions 
are  concentrated  upon  consequences.  We  seek  advice 
when  we  are  doubtful  about  consequences.  Precepts 
and  examples  elucidate  consequences.  We  work  and 
rest,  eat  and  drink,  scheme  and  plan,  spend  and  save, 
for  consequences.  We  indulge  or  sacrifice  ourselves 
for  consequences.  Caesar  expended  a  million  lives  for 
earthly  glory;  St.  Simeon  Stylites  scourged  himself  for 
eternal  gain. 

That  mind  is  the  strongest  which  has  the  clearest 
judgment  of  consequences.  The  fools  are  those  who  are 
ignorant  of  consequences.  The  child  must  be  guarded 
because  it  knows  little  of  consequences.  What  we  know 
of  narcotics,  stimulants,  antidotes,  hygiene,  surgery, 
chemistry,  agriculture,  mechanics,  commerce,  culture, 
we  know  through  the  observation  of  consequences.  The 
best  razor,  plough,  school,  sanitary  system,  plan  of  social 
betterment,  is  that  which  produces  the  best  results. 
The  shrewdest  maxims  of  trade  are  built  upon  the  obser- 
vation of  consequences.  The  science  of  political  economy 
aims  to  distinguish  and  mark  the  good  and  evil  results 
of  different  systems  of  land  tenure,  taxation,  trade  and 
finance.  The  science  of  government  would  determine 
what  political  system  is  best  for  a  people.  And  so  on 
through  the  whole  of  human  experience,  knowledge 

[5] 


seeks  to  distinguish  that  which  has  the  best  results  from 
that  which  has  inferior  or  evil  results. 

In  Reasoning 

Logic  builds  fundamentally,  as  we  have  already  ob- 
served, upon  the  principle  that  consequences  are  true  to 
their  antecedents.  Reasoning  builds  primarily  also, 
and  in  all  its  details,  from  the  simplest  deductions  of 
common  sense  to  the  most  subtle  abstractions,  upon  the 
same  principle. 

Reasoning  a  priori  is  from  cause  to  effect;  a  posteriori 
from  effect  to  cause.  The  syllogism  is  a  form  by  which 
one  may  advance  from  antecedent  premises  to  a  conse- 
quence. Conclusions,  corollaries,  deductions,  judgments, 
inferences,  discoveries  and  estimates  are  consequences 
— each  following  from  an  antecedent  or  antecedents. 

Inductive  reasoning  is  an  advance  from  antecedent 
facts  to  a  conclusion;  deductive  reasoning  is  from  a  gen- 
eral principle,  established  from  observation  of  its  anteced- 
ents or  consequences,  to  a  conclusion.  When  anteced- 
ents or  consequences  are  unknown,  we  fall  back  on 
analogy,  the  substitution  of  something  similar  with 
known  antecedents  or  consequences.  For  example,  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  embarking  upon  a  colonial 
policy  in  which  they  have  had  no  previous  experience, 
must  seek  knowledge  in  the  consequences  of  the  colonial 
expansion  of  England,  Spain,  France  and  other  countries. 

In  analysis  we  seek  to  comprehend  a  whole  by  investi- 

[6] 


gating  its  component  parts.  If  water  contains  matter 
with  injurious  consequences,  we  know  that  it  is  bad; 
if  it  contains  matter  with  no  harmful  or  disagreeable 
consequences,  we  know  that  it  is  good. 

Even  in  reasoning  through  sight  or  hearing,  we  must 
depend  upon  antecedents  or  consequences.  I  observe 
a  number  of  strangers  who  sit  opposite  to  me  in  a  car. 
I  know,  through  antecedent  experience,  that  they  are 
men.  I  judge  that  one  is  old,  because  he  has  gray  hair 
and  wrinkles,  the  consequences  of  age.  Another,  because 
his  hands  show  the  consequences  of  toil,  I  judge  to  be  a 
laborer.  Another  wears  glasses,  the  consequences  of 
defective  vision ;  another  shows  the  consequences  of  drink, 
another  of  worry,  and  so  on.  One  speaks,  and  his  voice 
shows  the  consequences  of  education  and  culture;  the 
voice  of  another  shows  the  consequences  of  ignorance. 

If  I  ride  through  the  country  in  a  district  unknown  to 
me,  the  sights  will  tell  me  much  about  the  people.  The 
condition  of  the  fields  and  buildings  on  one  place  will  in- 
form me  that  the  farmer  is  tidy  and  industrious,  and  on 
another  place  they  will  tell  a  different  story.  The  condi- 
tion of  a  farmer's  horse  will  give  some  idea  of  the  farmer's 
character.  Other  signs  will  inform  me  where  thrift  abides, 
where  poverty,  where  self-respect,  where  slovenliness. 

Facts,  theories,  ideas,  principles,  have  antecedents  and 
consequences  as  distinct  as  tangible  things.  We  judge 
the  value  of  a  machine,  a  field,  a  cow,  a  pig,  by  what  it 
will  produce;  a  picture,  a  scene,  a  play,  a  spectacle,  a 

[7] 


poem,  a  song,  a  book,  a  thought,  by  what  it  gives  back 
to  us;  a  creed,  a  plan,  a  policy,  a  system,  a  philosophy, 
by  what  we  believe  its  consequences  are  or  will  be. 

We  estimate  a  nation  by  its  history,  its  antecedent 
record.  The  calculation  of  future  events  is  based  on  ante- 
cedent knowledge.  We  must  judge  what  will  be  by  what 
has  been.  We  search  alike  for  good  seeds  and  evil  germs 
that  we  may  propagate  the  one,  and  destroy  the  other. 

To  comprehend  an  unknown  seed,  we  plant  it  and  ob- 
serve its  consequences.  To  comprehend  an  unexplained 
crime,  we  search  for  its  antecedents.  The  process  of 
reasoning,  even  of  the  most  abstract  reasoning,  is  the  same. 
The  farmer  and  the  seafaring  man,  the  statesman  and 
the  laborer,  the  philosopher  and  the  detective,  use  one 
and  the  same  process  of  reasoning — the  testing  of  anteced- 
ents by  consequences  or  of  consequences  by  antecedents. 
We  are  unable  to  think  of  antecedents  and  consequences 
as  being  other  than  invariable — of  peaches  as  growing  on 
apple  trees,  or  of  acorns  that  produce  potatoes. 

In  Ethics 

Beneath  the  many  conflicting  schools  of  morals  there 
is  a  fundamental  agreement — that  the  acts  of  man  must 
be  judged  by  their  consequences.  Aristotle*s  theory 
of  "the  mean,'*  the  avoidance  of  excess,  teaches  that 
moderation  will  produce  the  best  consequences;  the 
cynics  hold  that  plain  living  will  give  exemption  from  fear, 
anxiety  and  disappointment;  the  hedonists,  and  to  some 

C8] 


extent  the  epicureans,  commend  the  acts  which  produce 
pleasure;  the  stoics  hold  that  the  acts  unmoved  by  pas- 
sion, grief  or  fear  will  produce  the  better  manhood;  the 
utilitarians,  that  those  acts  are  best  that  produce  the 
greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number.  Mandeville  and 
Helvetius,  who  approve  of  the  acts  based  on  self-interest, 
hold  that  the  consequences  of  selfishness  are  best  for  the 
individual.  The  philosophers  who  hold  that  morals  are 
a  product  of  human  association  mean  thereby  that  man 
has  discovered  through  experience  what  is  most  advan- 
tageous for  society  and  for  the  individual.  Theology 
teaches  that  the  greatest  vurtue  consists  in  submission  to 
the  will  of  God,  eternal  happiness  being  the  conse- 
quence of  submission,  and  eternal  pain  the  consequence 
of  rebellion. 

There  appears  to  be  no  theory  of  morals  that  is  not  the 
result  of  the  observation  of  the  consequences,  or  of  specu- 
lation concerning  the  consequences,  of  human  action. 
How  do  we  know  that  truth  is  better  than  falsehood? 
Because  we  are  better  pleased  with  ourselves  when  we 
speak  truthfully  than  when  we  lie;  because  truth  is  essen- 
tial  to  understanding;  because  we  despise  lying  in  others; 
because  lying  leads  to  confusion,  uncertainty,  enmity, 
and  to  other  evil  consequences.  And  so  also  we  have 
formed  a  judgment  of  loyalty  and  treachery,  kindness  and 
cruelty,  sincerity  and  hypocrisy,  by  their  consequences. 

We  know  that  certain  actions  are  right  and  others 
wrong,  as  we  know  that  bread  is  good  and  straw  bad  for 

[9] 


food;  that  cleanliness  is  better  than  filthiness;  that  the 
way  to  walk  is  forward,  not  backward;  that  mirth  is 
pleasanter  than  grief. 

As  the  value  of  a  machine  is  shown  in  its  working,  and 
the  value  of  a  tree  by  its  fruit,  so  is  the  good  or  evil  in  our 
actions  determined  by  their  consequences. 

In  Mathematics 

In  arithmetic  the  antecedent  two  plus  two  equals  the 
consequence  jour;  the  antecedent  nine  minus  seven  equals 
the  consequence  two.  We  may  traverse  the  whole  course 
from  the  simplest  calculation  in  arithmetic  to  the  most 
intricate  problem  in  mathematical  physics  or  the  theory 
of  functions,  and  we  shall  find  in  each  and  all  the  same 
invariable  relation  between  antecedent  and  consequence. 

The  perfect  balance  between  antecedent  and  conse- 
quence is  the  vital  part  in  all  mathematical  reckoning, 
and  is  expressed  or  understood  in  the  fundamental  axioms 
and  principles  of  the  science. 

In  Physics 

We  live  in  a  world  in  which,  if  science  and  philosophy 
do  not  err,  there  is  ceaseless  motion  ever)nvhere,  and  per- 
fect rest  nowhere.  There  is  motion  in  the  heart  of  the 
granite  mountain,  in  the  minutest  portions  of  the  human 
body;  motion  great  and  insignificant,  perceptible  and  im- 
perceptible, disastrous  and  beneficent.  The  earth  moves 
in  its  ceaseless  journey  around  the  sun  at  the  rate  of  eight- 

[lO] 


een  miles  a  second,  one  thousand  and  eighty  miles  a 
minute — as  if  one  should  fly  from  New  York  to  Yonkers 
in  one  second,  to  Albany  in  ten  seconds,  to  BufiFalo  in 
thirty  seconds,  to  Chicago  in  one  minute,  to  San  Fran- 
cisco in  three  minutes — one  thousand  times  faster  than 
an  express  train,  fifty  times  the  speed  of  a  rifle  bullet. 
We  are  disturbed  often  by  our  own  little  projects,  inven- 
tions and  affairs,  but  we  are  not  fearful  that  the  bulky 
earth  will  come  to  harm  in  its  mad  course,  nor  would  we 
know  that  it  moves  at  such  speed,  or  that  it  moves  at  all, 
if  the  astronomers  had  not  demonstrated  the  fact.  We 
are  convinced  that  the  astronomers  have  discovered 
regularity  and  precision  in  the  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  that  their  forecasts  of  these  movements 
are  trustworthy,  and  that  Nature,  in  the  large,  in  her 
greater  and  grander  manifestations,  is  ruled  by  order. 

What  is  the  key  to  this  precision  and  regularity? 
Newton,  in  his  third  law  of  motion,  gives  an  explanation 
of  the  phenomena  of  universal  motion  which  is  accepted 
as  the  fundamental  postulate  of  physics :  *  *  To  everv  action 
there  is  an  equal  and  opposite  reaction." 

"If  fire  doth  heate  water,  the  water  reacteth  againe 
.  .  .  upon  the  fire,  and  cooleth  it,"  says  Sir  K.  Digby 
(A.  D.  1644).  The  knapsack  exacts  from  the  soldier 
who  carries  it  an  expenditure  of  force  equal  to  its  weight. 
Let  me  strike  a  stone  wall  with  a  gloved  fist,  and  it  will 
give  back  a  gloved  blow  in  response.  The  wall  will  be 
gloved,  even  as  my  fist  is  gloved,  at  the  point  of  contact. 


,/ 

j  Let  me  strike  hard  with  bare  knuckles,  and  I  shall  be 
j  convinced  that  Nature  gives  even  to  senseless  things 

y(  some  powers  of  resistance,  of  defense,  even  of  resent- 
/  ment.    If  I  should  be  thrown  upon  the  stone  wall  by 

/     accident,  still  the  wall  will  return  the  blow  with  equal 
force.    Nature^s  ways  are  exact— strain  for  strain,  blow 

\     for  blow. 

"Without  the  axiom  that  action  and  reaction  are  equal 
and  opposite,  astronomy  could  not  make  its  exact  predic- 
tions," says  Herbert  Spencer  (First  Principles,  193). 
As  astronomy  discerns  the  balance  between  action  and 
reaction — that  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents 
— in  the  remotest  regions  accessible  to  human  vision, 
and  in  the  most  tremendous  phenomena,  so  chemistry 
discovers  the  same  accurate  adjustment  among  the 
smallest  particles  of  matter  of  which  we  have  any  knowl- 
edge. This  is  illustrated  by  the  universal  practice  of 
chemists  in  writing  down  every  chemical  interaction  as 
an  equation :  so  much  of  this  plus  so  much  of  that  equals 
the  result. 

A  reaction  is  the  consequence  of  an  action,  an  eflfect 
is  the  consequence  of  a  cause,  a  result  is  the  consequence 
of  an  antecedent.  It  is  evident  that  the  words  reaction^ 
ejjecty  result  and  consequence  express  different  manifesta- 
tions of  one  law,  usually  called  the  Law  of  Causality, 
though  it  would  be,  I  believe,  more  correctly  named  the 
Law  of  Balance,  meaning  thereby  that  an  antecedent 
and  its  consequence  are  equivalent,  reciprocal  or  com- 

!i2j 


pensatory  to  each  other — that  one  balances  the  other, 
that  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents. 

Returning  to  the  fact  that  there  is  ceaseless  motion 
everywhere,  and  perfect  rest  nowhere,  we  perceive  that 
this  ceaseless  motion  is  regulated  by  equivalence, 
reciprocity  or  compensation  between  antecedents  and 
consequences.  Throughout  the  universe  reaction  unceas- 
ingly balances  action,  effect  unceasingly  balances  cause, 
consequence  unceasingly  balances  antecedent.  And  this 
state  of  balance  explains  perfectly  the  precision  and 
order  in  the  processes  of  Nature. 

The  Harmony  in  Truth 

The  simplest  truth  is  in  harmony  with  all  other  truth. 
Any  truth  concerning  the  system  of  Nature  must  agree 
with,  and  through  its  relations  include,  all  truth  con- 
cerning the  system  of  Nature. 

Modem  science  recognizes  that  Kepler's  three  laws 
of  planetary  motion  are  covered  by  Newton *s  laws  of 
motion — that  planetary  motion  is  governed  by  precisely 
the  same  laws  as  all  other  motion.  It  is  true  also  that 
Newton's  three  laws  of  motion  are  included  in  a  single 
fundamental  principle.  His  first  law  covers  the  fact 
that  the  motion  of  a  body  cannot  be  accelerated  or 
changed  in  course  "except  so  far  as  it  may  be  compelled 
by  force"  to  do  so;  that  is,  it  will  change  only  as  it  is 
compelled  by  cause  to  do  so.  His  second  law — "change 
of  motion  is  proportional  to  force  applied,  and  takes 

[13] 


place  in  the  direction  of  the  straight  line  in  which  the 
force  acts*' — means  that  the  consequence  of  a  force 
applied  must  correspond  accurately  with  its  antecedent. 
His  third  law — "To  every  action  there  is  an  equal  and 
opposite  reaction" — ^means  that  the  consequence  of  an 
action  is  equal  to  its  antecedent.  Each  of  Newton's 
three  laws  of  motion  is  included  definitely  by  its  own 
terms  in  the  principle  that  consequences  are  true  to  their 
antecedents. 

The  Theory  of  Evolution 

Evolution,  as  expounded  by  Darwin,  deals  funda- 
mentally with  the  theory  of  "Natural  Selection,"  which 
is  defined  as  follows  by  the  Century  Dictionary: 

"The  fact  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  in  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence— which  means  that  those  animals  and  plants  which  are  best 
adapted,  or  have  the  greatest  adaptability,  to  the  conditions  of 
their  environment  do  survive  other  organisms  which  are  less 
adapted,  or  less  capable  of  being  adapted,  to  such  conditions." 

The  word  environment,  used  in  connection  with  the 
theory  of  evolution,  is  defined  by  the  Century  as  "The 
sum  of  the  agencies  and  influences  which  affect  an 
organism  from  without."  That  is,  it  is  the  sum  of  the 
causes  which  affect  an  organism  from  without. 

The  organism  is  the  product  of  two  groups  of  influ- 
ences— the  one  group,  environment,  from  without;  the 
other,  inherited  nature  and  other  conditions,  from  within. 
The  organism  is  the  exact  sum  of  these  antecedent  causes. 
In  whatever  state  the  organism  survives,  it  is  the  conse- 

[14] 


quence  of  these  causes.    If  the  organism  perishes,  its 
death  is  the  resuh  of  one  or  more  of  these  antecedents. 

Ever)rthing — a  seed,  a  fish,  a  man,  a  government, 
a  race,  a  civilization — is  the  exact  product,  the  complete 
sum,  of  all  the  antecedents  that  have  produced  or  influ- 
enced it.  The  theory  of  evolution  is  a  statement  of  the 
working,  in  one  very  important  line  of  inquiry,  of  the 
principle  that  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents. 

Other  Important  Modern  Theories 

What  relation  do  the  modern  theories — ^modern  in 
their  general  acceptance,  not  in  their  origin — of  the  con- 
servation of  energy,  of  the  indestructibility  of  matter 
and  of  the  ceaselessness  of  motion,  bear  to  the  principle 
that  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents? 

The  axiom  of  the  conservation  of  energy  is  expressed 
as  follows:  "When  one  form  of  energy  disappears,  its 
exact  equivalent  in  another  form  takes  its  place."  The 
axiom  of  the  indestructibility  of  matter  may  be  expressed 
in  the  same  terms :  "  When  one  form  of  matter  disappears, 
its  exact  equivalent  in  another  form  takes  its  place." 
It  is  plain  that  the  theory  of  the  conservation  of  energy 
and  the  theory  of  the  indestructibility  of  matter  are  not 
two  theories;  they  constitute  one  theory — that  force 
and  matter  are  indestructible — the  meaning  of  which  is 
tliat  in  the  transformation  of  force  or  matter  there  is  no 
loss,  no  waste;  that  the  consequence  is  equivalent  to  the 
antecedent. 

[15] 


The  theory  that  motion  is  ceaseless  means  that  there 
is  no  halt  or  break  in  the  transformations  of  Nature, 
that  the  relation  between  cause  and  effect  will  have  no 
end,  that  the  time  will  never  come  when  an  antecedent 
will  have  no  consequence. 

Are   Natural  Processes  Compensatory? 

Can  we  say  that  the  equivalents  which  return  cease- 
lessly in  motion  and  transformation  are  compensatory? 
Yes;  the  return  of  an  exact  equivalent  is  exact  compensa- 
tion. Heat  is  the  compensation  for  the  fuel  that  produces 
it;  electricity  is  the  compensation  for  the  energy  that  is 
transformed  into  it;  one  molecule  of  water  is  the  com- 
pensation for  two  atoms  of  hydrogen  and  one  atom  of 
oxygen.  A  definite  amount  of  matter  or  force  pays  for 
exactly  the  same  amount  in  another  form.  That  which 
disappears  and  that  which  succeeds  are  mutually  com- 
pensatory. Fuel  pays  for  heat,  and  heat  pays  for  fuel. 
The  account  balances  perfectly.  ^Nature  has  no  profit 
and  loss  account,  no  bad  debts,  no  failures'Tii' compensa- 
tion. 

The  assumption  that  anything  can  exist  in  the  physical 
world  without  exact  compensation  appeals  to  the  scorn 
alike  of  science  and  of  common  sense.  Our  patent  office 
in  Washington  refuses  to  consider  devices  to  produce 
perpetual  motion  because  effect  without  cause,  power 

without  compensation,  is  impossible. 

..-^-..^.-...-.^-.._..„,^.__  ^^^^ 


The  Fundamental  Law 

Tracing  the  axiom  of  the  uniformity  of  Nature  to  its 
foundation,  we  have  observed  that  the  principle  that 
consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents  is  the  funda- 
mental postulate  of  reasoning.  We  have  observed  also 
that  precisely  the  same  principle — that  consequences  are 
true  to  their  antecedents — is  the  fundamental  postulate 
of  ethics,  of  mathematics,  of  physics,  and  also  of  the 
theory  of  evolution.  We  have  observed  also  that  the 
same  principle  appears  invariably  as  the  test  of  truth  in 
human  experience,  alike  in  the  simplest  affairs  and  in 
the  higher  reaches  of  knowledge. 

We  have  observed  also  that  the  theory  of  the  indestruc- 
tibility of  force  and  matter  is  an  extension  of  the  princi- 
ple that  consequences  are  true  to  their  antecedents  to 
this  extent — that  consequences  are  compensatory.  We 
have  observed  that  the  theory  of  the  ceaselessness  of 
motion  is  also  an  extension  of  the  same  principle  to  this 
effect — that  the  unvarying  relation  between  antecedent 
and  consequence  is  ceaseless  and  eternal. 

The  conclusion  from  these  observations  is  plain :  that 
the  universe  is  governed  by  one  law — that  consequences 
are  true  to  their  antecedents;  that  consequences  are  cease- 
less and  compensatory.  This  is,  I  believe,  the  supreme 
law  of  Nature,  single  and  fundamental,  in  which  all  other 
explanations  of  the  system  of  Nature  and  all  truth  con- 
verge and  have  their  center. 

[i7i 


II 


The   Foundation  of  Religion 

OF  THE  antiquity  and  universality  of  religion  no 
one    can    speak    with    more    authority    than 
Edward   B.  Tylor,  who  ranks  perhaps  as  the 
foremost    investigator    of    primitive    beliefs.    In    con- 
sidering the  theory  that  there  must  be  tribes  so  low 
as  to  be  destitute  of  religious  faith,  he  says: 

"Though  the  theoretical  niche  is  ready  and  convenient,  the 
actual  statue  to  fill  it  is  not  forthcoming.  The  case  is  in  some 
degree  similar  to  that  of  the  tribes  asserted  to  exist  without  lan- 
guage or  without  the  use  of  fire;  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things 
seems  to  forbid  the  possibility  of  such  existence,  but  as  a  matter 
of  fact  the  tribes  are  not  found.  Thus  the  assertion  that  rude  non- 
religious  tribes  have  been  known  in  actual  existence,  though  in 
theory  possible,  and  perhaps  in  fact  true,  does  not  at  present  rest 
on  that  sufficient  proof  which,  for  an  exceptional  state  of  things, 
we  are  entitled  to  demand." — Primitive  Culture,  i.  418. 

Concerning  the  harmonies  in  religious  beliefs,  Tylor 

also  says : 

"No  reUgion  of  mankind  lies  in  utter  isolation  from  the  rest, 
and  the  thoughts  and  principles  of  modern  Christianity  are 
attached  to  intellectual  clues  which  run  back  through  far  pre- 
Christian  ages  to  the  very  origin  of  human  civilization,  perhaps 
even  of  human  existence." — Primitive  Culture,  i.  421. 

Herbert  Spencer  says : 

"Of  religion,  then,  we  must  always  remember  that  amid  its 
many  errors  and  corruptions  it  has  asserted  and  diffused  a  supreme 
verity.  From  the  first,  the  recognition  of  this  supreme  verity, 
in  however  imperfect  a  manner,  has  been  its  vital  element;  and  its 

[i8] 


various  defects,  once  extreme,  but  gradually  diminishing,  have 
been  so  many  failures  to  recognize  in  full  that  which  it  recognized 
in  part.  The  truly  religious  element  of  religion  has  always  been 
good;  that  which  has  proved  untenable  in  doctrine  and  vicious  in 
practice  has  been  its  irreligious  element;  and  from  this  it  has  ever 
been  undergoing  purification." — First  Principles,  104. 

What  progress  has  been  made  by  relif;ion  in  tl^e  ex- 
planation  of  the  government  of  the  universe  ? 

If  we  would  answer  this  question,  we  must  first  inquire 
concerning  the  actual  meaning  of  the  great  fact  which 
we  call  religion — of  universal  religion,  of  all  religion, 
and  not  of  one  branch  of  faith.  What  seed  produced,  what 
cause  explains,  this  widespread  and  enduring  growth  ? 
Where  shall  we  find  the  "supreme  verity"  to  which 
Spencer  refers,  and  the  harmony  of  which  Tylor  speaks  ? 

It  would  be  useless  to  search  for  a  ground  of  agreement 
in  all  of  the  thought  of  the  world  concerning  religion, 
for  the  thinking  on  the  subject  has  been  volimiinous  and 
endless,  good  and  bad,  sane  and  insane.  Nor  should 
we  expect  to  find  an  essential  harmony  in  all  religious 
organizations,  great  and  small,  temporary  and  permanent, 
powerful  and  insignificant.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  sect 
claiming  to  be  religious  is  really  irreligious. 

We  should  seek  for  the  essential  meaning  of  religion 
in  the  broad  principle  or  principles  which  have  been 
accepted  by  great  masses  of  men  in  places  and  times  wide 
apart;  in  the  permanent  manifestations  of  religious 
sentiment,  and  in  the  instinctive,  spontaneous  or  un- 
taught beliefs  common  to  primitive  men  which  survive 

[19] 


X 


in  more  highly  developed  form  among  the  enlightened. 
And  we  should  seek  for  it  finally  in  the  harmony  of  belief 
in  the  great  religious  organizations  now  in  existence; 
for  they  must  contain,  in  the  natural  order  of  growth, 
that  which  is  worthy  of  survival  in  the  religious  faith  that 
has  preceded  them. 

The  Belief  That  the  Soul  Is  Accountable  for 
Its  Actions 

"I  entertain  a  good  hope,"  says  Socrates,  "that  some- 
thing awaits  those  who  die,  and  that,  as  was  said  long 
since,  it  will  be  far  better  for  the  good  than  the  evil." 
The  belief  in  a  judgment  after  death  is  very  old.  Man 
has  been  so  impressed  usually  by  his  accountability 
for  his  sins — by  "the  dread  of  something  after  death" — 
that  he  has  sought  means  of  escape  from  it  as  he  would 
from  wild  beasts,  from  flood  or  from  fire.  What  is  the 
inner  significance  of  this  conviction? 

The  knowledge  of  primitive  man  begins,  as  all  knowl- 
edge begins  and  continues,  with  consequences.  He  dis- 
covers that  water  quenches  thirst,  game  is  found  under 
certain  conditions,  a  cave  gives  shelter,  friction  brings 
fire,  the  sun  yields  heat  and  light,  some  plants  are  poison- 
ous, frost  withers,  lightning  kills. 

The  first  lesson  learned  by  the  infant  is  the  lesson  of 
consequences.  The  mother  is  the  source  of  food,  pro- 
tection and  tenderness.  Later  the  child  learns  that 
through  effort  it  can  walk;  that  some  things  are  hurtful 

[20] 


and  others  helpful;  some  bitter,  some  sweet;  some  hot, 
some  cold;  some  heavy,  some  light.  It  discovers  that 
some  actions  are  beneficial  and  may  be  safely  repeated; 
that  others  are  injurious  and  should  be  avoided.  The 
beneficial  it  recognizes  as  good,  the  harmful  as  evil. 
Before  it  can  speak  its  first  word  it  comprehends  that 
certain  causes  produce  certain  effects — that  consequences 
are  true  to  their  antecedents. 

I  believe  that  the  sense  of  accountability  was  in  the 
nature  of  things  the  first  religious  sentiment  in  the  mind 
of  man;  that  it  was  based  originally  and  still  rests  upon 
cause  and  effect,  which  are  apparent  to  the  dull  as  well 
as  to  the  enlightened;  that  the  lower  men  perceived  that 
the  fruits  of  certain  acts  and  things  were  good  and  of 
others  bad,  and  that  this  perception  led  inevitably,  in  the 
infancy  of  thought,  to  the  recognition  of  a  definite  relation 
between  cause  and  effect. 

Man's  belief  in  his  accountability — that  is,  in  cause  and 
effect — is  fundamental.  It  begins  with  his  first  rational 
consideration  of  his  relations  to  the  external  world  and 
to  the  order  of  Nature,  which  he  will  later  deify.  Natiure 
has  two  imperative  commands  which  primitive  man  hears 
constantly— "Thou  shalt"  and  **Thou  shalt  not."  His 
sense  of  dependence  in  the  presence  of  superhuman 
forces,  some  being  terrifying  and  others  beneficent,  impels 
him  to  believe  that  he  is  responsible  to  some  power  which 
administers  rewards  and  penalties,  determines  conse- 
quences.   As  his  mind  grows,  the  horizon  of  his  account- 


ability  extends  until  it  passes  beyond  the  confines  of  this 
life,  and  he  anticipates  that,  in  the  after-life,  it  will  be 
"far  better  for  the  good  than  the  evil." 

The  theory  of  **a  standard  of  duty  prescribed  by  some- 
thing loftier  than  immediate  advantage,"  as  Brinton 
expresses  it,  which  was  recognized  dimly  by  the  lower 
tribes,  has  been  accepted  by  the  later  forms  of  faith. 
There  is  no  religious  organization  of  age  or  substance 
now  in  existence  that  does  not  teach  the  complete  sub- 
jection and  responsibility  of  the  individual  to  some 
superhuman  power  or  powers. 

The  doctrine  that  the  soul  is  accountable  for  its  actions 
is  bedded  in  the  foundations  of  religion,  entering  com- 
pletely into  the  life  here  and  into  the  life  hereafter.  It 
explains  worship  and  propitiation;  it  lies  at  the  base  of  all 
religious  theories  of  reward  and  retribution,  of  a  day 
of  judgment,  of  salvation  and  damnation,  of  heaven  and 
hell. 

The  Belief  That  the  Soul  Survives  the  Death 
of  the  Body 

Tylor  claims  (Primitive  Cuhure,  i.  424)  "as  a  minimum 
definition  of  religion,  the  belief  in  spiritual  beings," 
which  appears  (p.  425)  "among  all  low  races  with  whom 
we  have  attained  to  thoroughly  intimate  relations."  He 
defines  "the  belief  in  spiritual  beings"  (p.  427)  as  includ- 
ing in  its  full  development  "the  belief  in  souls  and  in  a 
future  state" 


This  belief,  he  says  (p.  426),  is  "the  groundwork  of  the 
philosophy  of  religion,  from  that  of  savages  up  to  that  of 
civilized  man;'*  and  constitutes  (p.  427)  "an  ancient 
and  world-wide  philosophy." 

Grant  Allen  says: 

"  Religion,  however,  has  one  element  within  it  still  older,  more 
fundamental,  and  more  persistent  than  any  mere  belief  in  a  God 
or  gods — nay,  even  than  the  custom  of  supplicating  and  appeasing 
ghosts  or  gods  by  gifts  and  observances.  That  element  is  the 
conception  of  the  life  of  the  dead.  On  the  primitive  belief  in  such 
a  life  all  religion  ultimately  bases  itself." — The  Evolution  of  the 
Idea  of  God,  42. 

Brinton  says: 

"I  shall  tell  you  of  religions  so  crude  as  to  have  no  temples  or 
altars,  no  rites  or  prayers;  but  I  can  tell  you  of  none  that  does  not 
teach  the  belief  of  the  intercommunion  of  the  spiritual  powers 
and  man." — Religions  of  Primitive  Peoples,  50. 

D'Alviella  says: 

"The  discoveries  of  the  last  five-and-twenty  years,  especially 
in  the  caves  of  France  and  Belgium,  have  established  conclusively 
that  as  early  as  the  mammoth  age  man  practiced  funeral  rites, 
believed  in  a  future  life,  and  possessed  fetiches  and  "perhaps  even 
idols." — Hibbert  Lectures,  15. 

Huxley  says : 

"  There  are  savages  without  God  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
but  there  are  none  -without  ghosts." — Lay  Sermons  and  Addresses, 
163. 

Herbert  Spencer  says  that  the  conception  of  the  soul's 
survival  of  physical  death, 

"  along  with  the  multiplying  and  complicating  ideas  arising  from 
it,  we  find  everywhere — alike  in  the  arctic  regions  and  the  tropics; 

[«3] 


in  the  forests  of  North  America  and  in  the  deserts  of  Arabia;  in 
the  valleys  of  the  Himalayas  and  in  African  jungles;  on  the  flanks 
of  the  Andes  and  in  the  Polynesian  islands.  It  is  exhibited  with 
equal  clearness  by  races  so  remote  in  type  from  one  another  that 
competent  judges  think  they  must  have  diverged  before  the  existing 
distribution  of  land  and  sea  was  established — among  straight 
haired,  curly  haired,  woolly  haired  races;  among  white,  tawny, 
copper  colored,  black.  And  we  find  it  among  peoples  who  have 
made  no  advances  in  civilization  as  well  as  among  the  semi- 
dvilized  and  the  civilized." — Sociology,  ii.  689. 

Recognition  of  the  survival  of  the  soul  is  lacking  in  no 
important  religious  cult  of  which  we  have  accurate  knowl- 
edge, save  the  ancient  Hebrews,  who  believed  that  all 
souls  went  at  death  to  a  vague  and  sepulchral  hereafter 
which  could  not  be  called  life.  The  modern  Hebrews 
repudiate  the  materialism  of  early  Judaism.  For  more 
than  six  hundred  years  the  Jewish  church  has  accepted 
the  doctrine  of  "the  resurrection  of  the  dead"  in  the 
creed  of  Maimonides. 

In  the  same  way  the  Chinese  have  repudiated  Con- 
fucius. While  the  thought  of  Confucius  is  materialistic, 
the  Chinese  religions  are  profoundly  spiritualistic.  Not 
even  Confucius,  the  adored  and  venerated  philoso- 
pher of  the  Chinese,  nor  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament, 
could  wean  their  followers  permanently  from  the  belief 
in  a  future  life. 

The  religion  that  is  universal  or  lasting — as  distin- 
guished from  beliefs  which  are  temporary,  isolated,  or 
based  on  speculation  or  authority — tolerates  no  limita- 
tion upon  the  after-life  of  man.     Here  and  there  some 

[24] 


teacher  or  prophet  has  proclaimed  that  only  women, 
or  the  married,  or  the  great  or  the  good,  or  even  that  no 
one,  will  survive  death,  but  such  theories  have  left  no 
permanent  impression  upon  the  religious  convictions  of 
mankind.  The  great  religious  organizations  now  in 
existence  hold  that  all  mankind  will  survive  death. 

The  Belief  in  a  Supreme  Power  of  Adjustment 

So  far  as  our  definite  knowledge  extends,  the  belief  in 
superhuman  influences  or  powers  is  universal,  accepted 
alike  by  the  savage  and  the  philosopher;  by  the  deist, 
pantheist  and  atheist,  as  well  as  by  the  theist.  The 
agnostics,  even,  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  something 
higher  up,  beyond  us;  they  believe  that  it  exists,  and  that 
it  is  unknowable. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Buddhism  is  a  godless  religion, 
and  this  assertion  has  been  used  as  a  foundation  for  the 
assimiption  that  a  belief  in  God  is  not  fundamental  in 
religion.  It  may  be  that  Buddhism  recognizes  no 
supreme  being,,  but  it  is  not  true  that  Buddhism  acknowl- 
edges no  supreme*  power  of  adjustment.  No  religion 
recognizes  more  completely  than  Buddhism  the  eternal 
forces  of  reward  and  retribution,  as  is  illustrated  in 
Karma,  the  law  of  just  consequences. 

Primitive  man  had  a  low  or  dull  conception  of  the  over- 
ruling power.  Sometimes  he  located  it  in  a  pebble  or 
great  rock;  in  a  hill  or  mountain;  in  the  dawn,  sun, 
moon  or  stars;  in  a  mummy  or  an  idol;  in  his  own  an- 


cestor;  even  in  animals,  fishes  or  reptiles.  In  whatever 
form  he  recognized  it,  however,  it  was  to  him  a  power 
of  adjustment,  to  which  he  acknowledged  subjection. 

The  primitive  interpretations  of  the  supreme  power 
improved  with  man's  growth  in  culture.  The  lower 
conceptions  gave  way  to  something  better,  and  these  to 
something  still  better — fetichism  to  idolatry,  idolatry  to 
polytheism,  polytheism  to  monotheism. 

In  contrast  with  the  narrow  views  of  primitive  men, 
the  enlightened  sects  have  attributed  the  most  sublime 
qualities  to  the  supreme  order  or  ruler.  A  divine  power 
is  recognized  in  Varuna,  the  chief  deity  of  the  early 
Aryans;  in  Brahma,  the  absolute  of  the  Hindoos;  in 
Jehovah,  the  almighty  of  the  Hebrews  and  Christians; 
in  Odin,  the  all-father  of  the  Norsemen ;  in  Zeus,  the  high- 
est deity  of  the  Greeks;  in  Jupiter,  the  chief  god  oi  the 
Romans;  in  Allah,  the  one  God  of  the  Mohammedans. 
The  strongest  words  expressive  of  beneficence  and  omnip- 
otence are  applied  habitually  to  God — the  providence, 
the  divine,  the  infinite,  the  eternal,  the  all-powerful,  the 
all-present,  the  all-holy,  the  immutable,  the  most  high, 
the  ruler  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  king  of  kings,  the  light 
of  the  world,  the  sun  of  righteousness.  Always  he  is  the 
God  who  rewards  the  good  and  punishes  the  evil;  the 
God  who  administers  compensation — the  supreme  power 
cj  adjustment. 


(a6} 


Ill 


The  Agreement 


L 


WE  HAVE,  thenpthfee  fxindamental  religious 
"beliefs:      "        ' 

"TTTkat    the  soid  is  accountable   for  its 
actions. 
2.  That  the  sotd  survives  the  death  of  the  body, 
J.  In  a  supremo  pvivif  uf  adjuslmenti 
The  belief  that  the  soid  is  accountable  for  Ms.-o^tions 


irtfieTecugiilrton  that  the  law  of  invariable  consequences 
applies  to  the  individual  soul,  that  the  good  shall  fare 
better  than  the  evil,  that  men  shall  reap  as  they  sow. 

The  belief  that' the  soul  survives  the  death  of  the  body 
is  the  recognition  that  accountability  does  not  end  with 
the  death  of  1tKe"t)0dy;  that  the  wrongs  which  are  not 
righted  here  must  be  righted  elsewhere;  that  the  good 
which  is  not  rewarded  here  must  be  rewarded  hereafter; 
that  there  can  be  no  break  in  the  processes  of  accountabil- 
ity. As  science  assmnes  that  cause  and  effect,  action  and 
reaction,  motion  and  transformation,  are  ceaseless  in  the 
physical  world,  so  religion  assumes  that  cause  and  effect, 
actions  and  consequences,  are  ceaseless  In' tTe'souToTtKe 
individual.  The  religious  doctrine  of  ceaseless  moral 
accountability  is  identical  with  the  scientific  doctrine  of 
ceaseless  cause  and  effect.  As  science  postulates  that 
_..->—  [27] 


matter  and  force  are  indestructible^soje|igiQn  postuiatgr^^ 
ie  human  soul  is  indestruclible. 


The  belief  in  a  supreme  power  of  adjustment  is  the 
necessary  corollary  of  the  two  preceding  beliefs.  The 
doctrines  that  the  actions  of  the  individual  will  be 
balanced  by  their  results,  and  that  this  process  does  not 
cease  with  death,  include  the  recognition  of  a  power, 
supreme  and  eternal,  that  administers  rewards  and 
penalties,  determines  consequences. 

Combined,  read  from  one  into  the  other,  what  is  the 
message  conveyed  by  these  three  fundamental  religious 
beliefs  ?  Are  they  in  harmony  or  in  conflict  ?  is  the  mes- 
sage discordant,  or  feeble,  or  subtle,  or  unworthy  of  the 
great  fact  which  we  call  religion?  or  is  it  harmonious, 
simple  and  clear,  a  noble  interpretation  of  divine  truth  ? 
This  is  the  message  of  the  fundamental  religious  beliefs : 
That  man  is  subject  ceaselessly  to  the  law  of  invariable 
and  compensatory  consequences,  to  a  supreme  power  of 
adjustment. 

This  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  religion  is  not  the 
interpretation  of  one  sect  or  church,  of  one  time  or  place; 
it  is  the  interpretation  of  all  sects  and  churches  that  can 
be  classed  as  religious,  and  of  all  times  and  places  in 
which  religion  has  been  manifest.  It  is  not  the  product 
of  speculation  or  inspuration;  it  is  the  product  of  all 
hmnan  experience  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  religion. 
The  meaning  of  religion  is  found  in  its  own  history. 
Religion  contains  within  itself  its  own  story,  as  the  rocks 

(28  I 


contain  within  themselves  their  own  story.  The  message 
of  religion  is  not  vague,  subtle  or  unworthy;  it  is  plain, 
easy  to  comprehend;  it  is  lofty  and  good.  Mankind's 
recognition  of  religion  as  something  holy,  sacred  and 
divine  is  fully  justified  by  the  interpretation  of  religion 
revealed  by  the  history  of  religion — that  man  is  subject 
ceaselessly  to  the  law  of  invariable  and  compensatory 
consequences. 

We  have  observed  the  harmony  in  the  scientific  explana- 
tions of~  the-system-of -  Nature=^th'at  each  explanation 
points  accurately  to  aThigher  and  single  explanation. 
And  we  now  observe  tKe  saine"1iaa'ffi6nym  funda- 
mental conceptions  of  religion,  which  point  unerringly 
to  the  same  explanation,  single  and  supreme,  reached  by 
science. 

Religion,  dealing  with  the  relations  of  the  individual 
soul  to  the  government  of  the  universe,  rests  with  the 
recognition  of  eternal  justice — that  human  action  is  cease- 
less and  compensatory.  Science,  dealing  with  matter 
and  force,  holds  that  physical  action  is  ceaseless  and  com- 
pensatory. Advancing  into  the  realm  of  mathematics, 
logic  and  ethics,  science  also  proclaims  that  the  per- 
fect balance  between  antecedent  and  consequence,  or 
cause  and  effect,  is  fundamental  in  all. 

The  scientific  conception  of  physical  action  is  this: 
//  is  ceaseless  and  compensatory. 

The  religious  conception  of  human  action  is  this: 
//  is  ceaseless  and  compensatory. 

[39] 


These  two  conceptions  are  identical.  Both  are  inter- 
pretations of  one  law — the  law  of  invariable  consequences, 
of  ceaseless  compensation. 

The  two  conceptions  are  not  identical  by  chance  or 
accident.  The  uniformity  of  Nature  demands  that  they 
shall  be  identical. 

We  have  no  difficulty  in  thinking  of  physical  conse- 
quences as  invariable.  All  experience  shows  that  they 
are  invariable.  Extending  this  one  law  of  invariable 
consequences  into  the  realm  of  the  soul,  we  perceive  that 
the  one  law  establishes  the  religious  theory  of  moral 
accountability,  and  the  rightness  of  the  cosmic  order. 
I  cannot  doubt  that  this  one  law  is  that  which  religious 
thought  has  sought  to  comprehend  in  all  stages  of  culture, 
and  with  increasing  success  as  men  have  grown  in  knowl- 
/^dge.  The  very  same  law  which  is  recognized  by  science 
as  fundamental  in  the  physical  world,  establishes  perfect 
justice,  infinite  and  eternal,  when  extended  into  the  world 
of  souls.  Applied  to  matter  and  force,  this  one  law 
explains  the  marvelous  order  in  the  material  universe; 
applied  to  the  individual,  it  becomes  the  noblest  philosophy 
that  the  human  mind  can  grasp.  For  it  explains  the 
dark  problem  of  evil,  and  it  vindicates  the  justice  of  God. 

Shall  we  say  that  this  one  law  operates  only  in  the 
physical  world  ?  Then  we  deny  the  uniformity  of  Na- 
ture. Shall  we  say  that  we  must  not  claim  compensation 
for  the  soul  because  we  cannot  follow  the  soul  and  trace 
out  its  complete  compensations  ?    That  is  not  the  method 

t3o] 


of  science.  Newton  does  not  say  that  gravitation  exists 
only  so  far  as  one  can  see  or  observe  it.  He  affirms  that 
gravitation  is  universal.  Modern  science  affirms  also  that 
gravitation  and  all  other  laws  and  processes  of  Nature  are 
universal.  The  science  of  astronomy  has  advanced  only 
through  the  postulation  that  the  very  same  laws  of  gravita- 
tion and  of  cause  and  effect  operate  in  the  remotest  parts 
of  the  universe  as  they  operate  here — that  these  laws  are 
there  because  they  are  here.  Scie^itifie-tninds-^re  hoktl 
and  courageous  in  affirming  the  uniformity  of  Nature. 
Religious  minds  may  find  inspiration  aixd  good  example 
-in  this  lofty  courage,  in  this  sublime  faith,  of  science. 
Religious  men  may  take  then:  stand  also,  firmly  and  im- 
pr^gnably,  upon  the  uniformity  of  Nature.  As  scientific 
men  affirm  that  the  law  is  the  same  here,  there  and  every- 
where, and  that  distance  or  time  or  transformation  cannot 
change  the  law,  so  religious  men  may  affirm  that  the  law 
of  compensation  is  there  beyond  the  grave  because  it  is 
here,  that  distance  or  time  or  death  cannot  change  the 
law. 

Religion  and  science  are  in  agreement,  not  in  conflict. 
They  have  never  been  in  real  conflict.  The  appearance 
of  conflict  has  been  due  to  the  misunderstanding  and 
misinterpretation  of  both  religion  and  science  through 
the  ages  in  which  men  have  been  groping  and  toiling 
upward  from  darkness  to  light. 

The  scientific  explanations  of  Nature  have  advanced 
constantly  in  breadth — into  the  uniform,  the  boundless, 

[31] 


the  universal,  the  changeless,  the  ceaseless,  the  deathless. 
Upon  these  broad  grounds  religion  and  science  meet — 
on  the  ground  of  life,  not  death;  of  persistence,  not  anni- 
hilation; of  right,  not  wrong;  on  the  ground  of  the  uni- 
formity of  Nature :  that  the  consequences  of  human  action 
are  as  definite  as  the  consequences  of  chemical  action; 
that  the  law  of  compensation  which  operates  in  the  realm 
of  physics  acts  with  the  same  unfailing  certainty,  and 
with  the  same  eternal  ceaselessness,  upon  the  soul  of  man. 


Criticism  of  the  foregoing  matter  is  invited  by  the  author, 
whose  address  is  45  Park  Place,  New  York. 


[3O 


ETERNALISM: 

A    THEORT    OF    INFINITE    JUSTICE 
By  ORLANDO  J.  SMITH 

Professor  N.  S.  Shaler:  "This  view  [of  the  eternal  nature 
of  the  individual  soul]  is  maintained  in  this  remarkable  book 
with  a  rare  skill  in  presentation.  Within  the  limits  of  the 
writing  the  task  could  hardly  have  been  more  effectively  or 
more  logically  accomplished.    ,    .   . 

"Men  have  gone  far  with  natural  science  and  philosophy 
with  the  hope  that  they  might  find  an  answer  to  the  grave 
question  as  to  their  place  in  the  realm.  Here  is  a  man  who 
has  read  much  and  widely,  who,  for  all  his  learning,  trusts  to 
his  instincts  for  guidance;  for  while  the  book  has  evidently 
been  a  matter  of  most  elaborate  preparation  ...  it  remains 
singularly  original  and  individual." 

Price  ^1.25  net;  postage   13  cents. 


BALANCE: 

THE     FUNDAMENTAL     VERITT 

By  ORLANDO  J.  SMITH 

Samuel  A.  Elliot,  PresH  American  Unitarian  Ass^n: 
"One  gets  the  impression  of  a  scholar  and  writer  who  is  no 
vague  dreamer,  but  a  man  of  affairs,  who  is  secure  in  his 
footing  and  certain  of  touch.  .  .  .  There  is  no  dodging  of 
issues,  no  incoherency  of  statement,  no  special  pleading,  no 
philosophical  vocabulary.  ...  He  puts,  as  it  were,  a 
candle  within  the  ordinary  things  of  scientific  verification  and 
makes  them  glow  as  with  celestial  light." 

Price  $1.25  net ;  postage   1 3  cents. 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  6-  CO.  Publishers,  BOSTON 


14  DAY  USE 

MTURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recaa 


i^tm'ewm 


l«a^6tOA 


Ri-CO  UU 


APR  1 8  w 


^ 


LD  21A-50to-4,'60 
(A9562sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


GAYLAMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

-^ 
Manufactured  by 
eAYLORDBROS^  «. 
Syracuse,  N^ 
Slocltton,  r 


fi^.2S7v{;i) 


5C 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


I? 


